Wednesday, February 06, 2013

Iraq snapshot

Wednesday, February 6, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, another
suicide bombing in Iraq, the UN calls for an end to female genital
mutilation, Iraqiya returns to the Cabinet meetings, DoD and VA fail to
meet their assigned tasks, and more.

Turning
to War Criminal Colin Powell who, ten years ago, appeared before the
United Nations (February 5, 2003) to 'make the case' for war on Iraq by
lying. Lawrence Wilkerson may never be able to become the second Mrs.
Colin Powell, but Wilkerson can and does 'stand by your man' right now.
And sadly, a lot of people assist Wilkerson in whitewashing Colin
Powell -- but the blood never fades, all that blood of the innocents on
Colin Powell's hands. Today Norman Solomon appeared on Democracy Now! to debate Wilkerson . Excerpt.

NORMANSOLOMON:
Well, we just heard Colonel Wilkerson say that "we were all wrong." I’m
quoting him here from a few minutes ago. In fact, we were not all
wrong. As a matter of fact, many experts and activists and researchers,
from the get-go, in 2002, were saying that the administration case for
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was full of holes, and many guests
on Democracy Now! demolished those claims from the Bush
administration in real time. The organization where I work, the
Institute for Public Accuracy, put out many news releases documenting
the falsities coming from Colin Powell’s office and the entire
administration, including the week that he gave his now-infamous speech
at the United Nations. We had U.N. weapons inspectors like Scott Ritter
and Hans von Sponeck demolishing many of those claims being made, again,
in real time.So, what we’ve heard again today -- and I think it’s very
disappointing -- from the former chief of staff here of Colin Powell is the
reiteration of these supposedly exculpatory, actually, excuses for just
following orders. And I could condense what Colonel Wilkerson just said
about Colin Powell’s role in the lead up to the war in Iraq: "We were
just following orders, and Dick Cheney made us do it." No, Dick Cheney
didn't make you do it. There's something called resignation. There’s
something called speaking up and the First Amendment. There are a lot of
dead Americans and many more Iraqis because of the silence and the
following of orders when we look at what actually took place.Now, one of the most important facts is that, 10 years later, an
ongoing legacy of Colin Powell’s behavior -- and, unfortunately, of our
guest, as well, and the entire upper echelons of the Bush
administration -- is a pattern of impunity -- impunity to lie, impunity to
deceive and distort, impunity that is personal, that is professional and
is governmental. And that kind of impunity, which has caused so much
death and misery in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, is being
fast-forwarded, is prefigurative for where we are now. And so, even
today, although what’s done is done, we might say, the failure of people
like Colin Powell to step up and say, "Look, not only was I wrong, but
in planning and implementing aggressive war, I violated the Nuremberg
Principles" -- if we could get those kind of forthright statements from
these former top officials, we could look at the agenda building for war
on Iran in a more understanding light.

Fewer girls are subjected to the life-threatening practice of female
genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) according to new data from the United
Nations, released on 6 February, the International Day of Zero
Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation.
The data show that FGM/C is becoming less prevalent overall and the younger generation is less vulnerable to the practice.In the 29 countries in Africa and the Middle East, where the
practice of FGM/C is concentrated, on average, 36 per cent of girls aged
15-19 have been cut compared to an estimated 53 per cent of women aged
45-49. The decline is particularly sharp in some countries: in Kenya,
for example, women aged 45-49 are three times more likely to have been
cut than girls aged 15-19.“This progress shows it is possible to end FGM/C” said UNICEF
Executive Director Anthony Lake. “FGM/C is not only deeply wrong, we can
and must end it to help millions of girls and women lead healthier
lives.”These recent estimates produced by UNICEF show that at least 120
million girls and women have experienced FGM/C in these 29 countries.
Given present trends, as many as 30 million girls under the age of 15
may still be at risk. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and
UNICEF Joint Programme on FGM/C is currently making progress in
preventing these girls and future generations from being exposed to
FGM/C.The new estimates follow the unanimous adoption of a UN General
Assembly resolution in December 2012, calling on Member States to
intensify efforts towards the complete elimination of FGM/C.Since 2008, when the UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme on FGM/C was
established, nearly 10,000 communities in 15 countries, representing
about 8 million people, have renounced the practice. Last year, a total
of 1,775 communities across Africa publicly declared their commitment to
end FGM/C.All Iraq News reports
the UN called on the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional
Government to eliminate the practice of female genital mutilation and
finds that 8% of Iraqi women ages 15 to 49 have had some form of FGM --
the bulk of the 8% reside in Erbil, Kirkuk and Sulaimaniya.

Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 76 people killed this month by violence in Iraq. 76 in the first five days of the month alone.

As security is needed in Iraq, Alsumaria reports that Sahwa ("Awakenings," "Sons/Daughters Of Iraq") announced today that at least 80% of their weapons are out of date. Kitabat reports
that the Ministry of Justice announced yesterday that since December
21, 2010, 200 prisoners have died in Iraqi prisons. Consider that
another reason for the attempted prison breaks.

Tuesday saw a win for the Iraqi press. Al Rafidayn reports that the despised 'cybercrime bill' has been dropped. Iraq's Journalistic Freedoms Observatory issued
a statement praising the Parliament and the Chair of the Committee on
Culture and Information for abolishing the bill noting that it had met
with harsh opposition since the bill became public -- many journalists
-- in and out of Iraq -- condemned the bill and over 40 international
organizations also came out against it. Among the over 40 speaking
out? Human Rights Watch which noted last July:

“This bill would give Iraqi authorities yet another tool
to suppress dissent, especially on the Internet, whichIraqi journalists
and activists increasingly turn to for information and open debate,”
said Joe Stork, deputy
Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The Council of
Representatives should reject lawsthat would undermine the freedoms
enshrined in Iraq’s2005 constitution.”

Jillian C. York and Maira Sutton (Electronic Frontier Foundation) observe, "Fortunately, it looks as if this bill will not become law. A document released on January 22, 2013 and shared by Social Media Exchange
(SMEX) shows that a request was made by the parliamentary Culture and
Media Committee and approved by the Speaker of the House to revoke the
egregious law." Also dropped is a boycott. All Iraq News reports
that Iraqiya members in Nouri's Cabinet have returned to Cabinet
hearings saying that they feel protesters are being listened to. (They
boycotted hearings last month saying the protesters were not being
listened to.) The paper notes
Ayada Allawi declared that a replacement needed to be named for Nouri
because Nouri is unable to manage the state's affairs. There have been
calls for early parliamentary elections. Whether that happens or not,
Iraq is supposed to hold provincial elections in April.

When
the Independent High Electoral Commission was truly independent, Nouri
tried to take it over. Unable to do so, he would imprison the Committee
Chair and a Commissioner. Why isn't that still happening with the new
Committee Chair? Because Muqdad al-Sharifi is in Nouri's pockect. AFP reports:
that Nouri's little puppet declared that "anti-governmnet rallies" are
causing security issues which could harm the April provincial
elections.

The problem is the
"anti-government rallies"?

The only people who have died at the rallies were 7 Iraqis who were
demonstrating. (False attempts to tie the deaths of 2 Iraqi soldiers to
the protests failed some time ago.) But 76 people died through
yesterday from violence. The protesters are exercising their democratic rights guaranteed to them
by their country's Constitution. One would assume someone in charge of
elections would applaud that.

Toby
Dodge: Now the national elections of March 2010 saw something quite
remarkable, I think. It saw a sustained challenge to that exclusive
elite command. Iraqiya -- a coalition of political parties led by Ayad
Allawi capitalizing on a rising nationalism in Iraq as violence
decreased -- ran, I think, an incredibly effective grassroots campaign
and mobilized enough folks to get 91 -- 91 seats compared to Maliki's
89. However, that challenge to the exclusive elite pact created a
counter-challenge by the politicians who'd benefited from the exclusive
elite pact and what you saw from March to November was a period of
extended and acrimonious negotiations. In the end, I would argue, and
there are probably people in the audience who disagree, that what
happened was with the Erbil Agreement of November 2010, Iraqiya was
brought back into another government of national unity on the basis of
the exclusive elite pact. Iraq's Islamic party had long failed to exist
as meaningful electoral forces was pushed out, Iraqiya was brought in
-- "No, no, you can represent the Sunni population. We'll give the
Ministry of Finance -- a bit problematic at the moment -- we'll give you
the vice president -- also problematic -- and that'll be enough." Now
think about the 2,849,000 people who voted for Iraqiya in March, they've
seen the influence of their votes on the government systematically
minimized ever since. And their parliamentary representatives brought
into government only to be persecuted and driven into exile in the case
of [Vice President Tareq al-] Hashemi. The continuation of this
exclusive elite pact cannot but alienate increasing numbers of Iraq's
population, exacerbating the already powerful, popular sentiment that
the government is failing to deliver on their needs because of
corruption. So in 2013, ten years after the invasion, Iraq is a state
whose prime minister is increasingly concentrating political and
coercive power in his own hands. He and the rest of the ruling elite
are kept in power by a million man security force which is restricted by
little or no democratic or parliamentary oversight. In February 2011,
the Arab Spring arrived in Iraq with mass public demonstrations
breaking out, certainly in Baghdad but also in Basra and intriguingly up
in the Kurdish Regional Government areas of north Iraq. These
demonstrations -- these popular expressions of alienation and anger at
the corrupt ruling elite were suppressed by extended violence. This is
the outcome of regime change a decade after invasion: An increasingly
authoritarian government unable to deliver services to its population,
increasingly reliant on an over-developed armed force.

Dropping
back to yesterday afternoon, the US House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee
on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs held a hearing on the use
of temporary disability ratings.Subcommittee Chair Jon
Runyan: Our hearing topic today will focus on temporary total
disability
ratings. Temporary total disability ratings serve a very important
function in the benefits scheme. This type of rating is assigned when
it is established by medical evidence that surgery or certain treatment
was performed, necessitating a period of recovery during which the
veteran cannot work. However, according to a January 2011 report by the
VA Office of the
Inspector General, VBA has not been correctly processing and monitoring
such claims. As a result, the OIG stated that since January 1993, VBA
has overpaid veterans a net amount of $943 million. The OIG also stated
that without timely action, VBA would overpay veterans a projected $1.1
billion over the next five years. These numbers are troubling, to say
the least. As all of us here
today are aware, our nation’s fiscal health is one of this Congress’s
top priorities. Part of this process includes trimming government
spending and eliminating government waste. It is my hope that by
bringing attention to this topic, we can ensure that every dollar
appropriated to VA is being spent properly on care and benefits for our
veterans. We heard from VA in June of last year during sworn testimony,
that
these errors were due to a computer glitch. VA advised that the glitch
would be fixed by July 2012. Nonetheless, two new Regional Office
audits issued by the OIG last
month found that 50 percent of the temporary 100 percent disability
evaluations reviewed were incorrect. The explanations given in the OIG
audits stated that the 50 percent accuracy rate occurred because staff
did not establish controls to monitor the proposed reductions initially,
nor did they schedule future medical examinations as required. So --
something doesn’t add up here. If the computer glitch was
fixed in July 2012 but over 50 percent of temporary total rating claims
are still being processed incorrectly as of January 2013, then that
leads me to believe that these are human errors, not computer errors.

100% Temporary Disability Rating? "A
total 100% temporary disability rating will be assigned, without regard
to the rating schedule, when a service connected disability has
required hospitalization treatment by the Department of Veterans
Affairs, for a period in excess of 21 days." Paralyzed Veterans of America's
Carl Blake submitted a written statement for the record. He noted that
temporary disability ratings rarely affected members of his
organization: That being said, temporary total disability ratings serve an important
and practical purpose for many veterans. The determination for
temporary total disability ratings are governed by the provisions of 38
C.F.R. § 4.29, Ratings for service-connected disabilities requiring
hospital treatment or observation, and 38 C.F.R. § 4.30, Convalescent
ratings. Temporary increases to VA disability ratings in accordance
with the provisions of Paragraphs 29 and 30 are simple adjustments to
running compensation awards that can be accomplished by employees with a
minimum of training. Temporary increases to compensation Paragraph 29
are determined by the verified dates of hospitalization. Meanwhile,
adjustments under the provisions of Paragraph 30 are established by
rating action based on available medical information. In each case, the
dates of entitlement are clearly indicated, and with only a small
amount of attention to detail, there should be no significant errors.

Runyan
continues as Subcommittee Chair. The new Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee is Dina Titus. There were two panels. The first panel was
Vietnam Veterans of America's Rick
Weidman and VA's Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations
Linda Halliday (accompanied by Larry Reinkemeyer and Brent Arronte).
The second panel was the VA's Diane Rubens. While the issue of
overpayment causes alarm in the current fiscal climate, overpayment
isn't the only problem.

Ranking Member Dina Titus: As
the Chair mentioned, and it bears repeating, a billion dollars is
something to be worried about. But this doesn't just go one way in
terms of overpayments. At the Reno VA Regional Office, which serves my
Congressional district in southern Nevada, the Inspector General found
that over half of the 100% disability evaluations were incorrectly
processed. And while a number of these involved overpayments, there
were also some underpayments. And we certainly don't want our veterans
to be underpaid. For example, we found one veteran with service
connected bone cancer and prostate cancer who was underpaid nearly
$10,000 over a period of three years.

We'll note one one exchange from the hearing.

Subcommittee
Chair Jon Runyan: Ms. Halliday, in your opinion, why is it the VBA
failed to take adequate and timely measures to address the -- the
systematic problems?

Linda Halliday: Reliance that they needed
an IT fix. And that took some coordination between the VBA office and
out office of OINT. We kept telling them it is not just the IT fix.
What we were finding were people -- the VARO [Veterans Affairs Regional
Office] staff were not making proper input to put these diaries in
place. Regardless of whether you had an IT fix in place, that action
had to occur. So it's been awhile that I don't believe VBA has been
aggressive enough in addressing that -- that piece of it. I know
recently, Ms. Rubens had laid out some corrective action that included
training which is consistently recommend in the benefits inspection
reviews to try and reduce the human error associated with processing
some of these claims.

Subcommittee Chair Jon Runyan: And -- and
going back -- and you mentioned it in your testimony there about the
targeted completion date which was moved several times -- to September
30, [20]11, to December 30, [20]11, to June 30, [20]12 and then to
December 31st, [20]12. Do you know if the December 31st, '12 deadline
was ever met? Or has it been pushed back even further?

Linda
Halliday: We haven't tested for it, but the evidence would be right now
the benefits inspection are still identifying substantial errors.

Subcommittee
Chair Jon Runyan: And then finally, uhm, an alarming statistic in your
written testimony says that only 53 regional offices have been
inspected since your national audit -- have been fully followed by VBA
policy and processing temporary disability claims evaluations. Can you
further elaborate on the extent that these problems are due to human
error as opposed to the computer glitch? And do you agree that -- with
VBA's insistence that -- system glitches are the reason for these
errors?

Linda Halliday: Yeah, I'd like to ask Brent Arronte --
since he has spent so much time in our VA regional offices doing the
inspections -- to filed that.

Brent Arronte: What our
inspections have-have shown is about 46% of the errors that we've seen
with suspense date is what VBA is saying was the result of a systems
glitch. We never found a system's glitch. To us a glitch means the
system was not working as intended. We spoke with some of the
architecture behind this, I think in 2010, and they told us that the
system was never developed to put these -- to ensure that these diary
dates were populated into the system. With that, we-we -- Two of the
fixes that VBA has indicated that they have implemented, one in 2011 and
one in 2012, we have not tested that yet. We haven't obtained the data
to see if those fixes are working systematically. But what we have
seen is about 25% of the errors are related purely to human error --
where staff is not putting in the -- or cancelling reminder
notifications inadvertently, not understanding how to process reminder
notifications and that results in the same effect of the benefit being
paid when there's no evidence showing entitlement.

The
Veterans Administration should be embarrassed that a hearing took place
where the Inspector General explained that they refused to listen and
that they repeatedly moved the date back. The Secretary of the VA, Eric
Shinseki, should be asked to explain how that happened? He is supposed
to be the head of the department, he is supposed to provide
leadership. This is just like, after the scandal of veterans not
receiving their education checks, he mentions to Congress that he was
informed of this impending problem right after he took over as Secretary
of the VA. He should have been called to the carpet for that but
instead everyone apparently agreed to look the other way. From the October 14, 2009 snapshot covering the House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing that day:

Erick Shinseki: A plan was written, very
quickly put together, uh, very short timelines, I'm looking at the
certificates of eligibility uh being processed on 1 May and enrollments 6
July, checks having to flow through August. A very compressed
timeframe. And in order to do that, we essentially began as I arrived in
January, uh, putting together the plan -- reviewing the plan that was
there and trying to validate it. I'll be frank, when I arrived, uh,
there were a number of people telling me this was simply not executable.
It wasn't going to happen. Three August was going to be here before we
could have everything in place.

But he didn't
bother to let Congress know. He didn't bother to warn the veterans who
might be counting on those checks. And this all got ignored. Now we
learn that the issue of 100% temporary disability pay has not been fixed
and part of the reason for that failure is that they don't want to
listen to the Inspector General's office. Where is the accountability?

Halliday
said at yesterday's hearing, "We had expected VBA to keep their
commitment to work this national requirement and we just watched
slippage upon slippage. I think you have to ask the Department, VBA,
why it took so long." She might as well have been talking about the
electronic record that VA and DoD were tasked with developing. Mary Mosquera (Federal Computer Week) reported April 9, 2009:Obama said it was time “to give our veterans a 21st-century VA,"
adding that there is no comprehensive system that enables a smooth
transition of health care records between DOD and VA.“That results in extraordinary hardship for an awful lot of veterans,
who end up finding their records lost, unable to get their benefits
processed in a timely fashion,” Obama said. Access to electronic records
is essential to modern health care delivery and the paperless
administration of benefits, he added.“That’s why I’m asking both departments to work together to define
and build a seamless system of integration with a simple goal: When a
member of the armed forces separates from the military, he or she will
no longer have to walk paperwork from a DOD duty station to a local VA
health center; their electronic records will transition along with them
and remain with them forever,” he said.

A seamless system of
integration. It would, Barack said, "give our veterans a 21st-century
VA." He wasn't pulling notions out of thin air. In 2007, Commissioners
Bob Dole and Donna Shalala were named to head The President's
Commission On Care For America's Returning Wounded Warriors. The
commission came up with this idea and, in their final report, warned,
"Meanwhile, congressional or departmental reform efforts should resist
imposing new requirements that may result in duplicative or
uncoordinated electronic systems and, instead, encourage the
streamlining of today's systems and facilitate communication across
them."

Does Shinseki think he can just blow off the tasks he's
assigned? Does he not get how this impacts veterans? November 11,
2009, the VA's Assistant Secretary of Public and Intergrovernmental
Affairs Tammy Duckworth appeared on The Diane Rehm Show (NPR).

Tammy Duckworth: Well what didn't work so well -- this is one of
the first things I brought up to [VA] Secretary [Eric] Shinseki when he
interviewed me -- was the fact that we did not have a seamless
transition of our military records from DoD to VA. When I left Walter
Reed with my full medical records and I went to my VA hospital for the
first time, I had to strip down to prove that I was an amputee. Even
though he could see that I was an amputee and he had the medical records
from the surgeon who amputated my legs. And we're immediately fixing
that. Back in May of this year, [Defense] Secretary [Robert] Gates and
Secretary Shinseki agreed to a program where we're going to develop
virtual, lifetime, electronic records. So that from the day you raise
your hand to enlist in the army to the day that you're laid to rest in
one of our national shrines, your records follow you. And this will be a
monumental change in how VA and DoD hand off and care for our
veterans.

So in 2009, Iraq War veteran Tammy
Duckworth told him in very concrete terms how this could effect a person
transitioning from service member to veteran. Did he not listen?
Duckworth is now a member of the US Congress, House Rep Tammy
Duckworth. I called out Shinseki this morning and Shirley and Martha
advise e-mails felt I was giving Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta a
pass because I know him. I know Leon, I like Leon. I've held him
accountable when needed and haven't worried about 'tone.' This isn't
Leon's issue. He's out the door, for one thing. For another, he won't
even have 18 months as Secretary of Defense (unless Chuck Hagel's
nomination gets tanked). If Hagel had been confirmed last week and had
made the announcement Tuesday with Shinseki, I wouldn't have called out
Hagel. It's not Hagel's issue.

Shinseki has been the consistent under Barack. Dropping back to the July 25th snapshot to note that day's House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing:

This morning, US House Rep Jeff Miller noted that "in 1961 John F.
Kennedy said we'd put a man on the moon, eight years later, we were
there. We're talking about an integrated electronic health records by
2017. Why could we put a man on the moon in eight years and we're not
starting from ground zero on the electronic health record -- why is it
taking so long?" He was asking that of the Secretary of Defense Leon
Panetta and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki who were
appearing before a joint-hearing of the House Armed Services and House
Veterans Affairs Committee.

Of course no real answer was given. A grinning -- apparently amused --
Shinseki began his non-answer by declaring that "I can't account for the
previous ten years." Though he didn't say it, he also apparently
couldn't account for the three years that he's been Secretary of the
VA. Three years and seven months. You'd think Shinseki would be able
to speak to the issue. He couldn't. He could offer that he met with
Panetta four times this year with plans for a fifth meeting. This was
the same amount he met with former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
but, apparently, in a few months less time. I have no idea what that
or his ridiculous grin was about.

But I do think Shinseki may have inadvertently provided an answer for
the delay when he went on to declare, "It's taken us seventeen months
to get to an agreement that both Secretary Panetta and I signed that
describes the way forward." There's the problem right there.

Back in March 2011 what was Shinseki bragging about? As Bob Brewin (Nextgov.com) reported,
"Veteran Affairs Sectretary Eric Shinseki said Thursday he and Defense
Secretary Robert Gates agreed on March 17 that their departments would
develop a common electronic health record system." So that was agreed
to in March 2011. But it took Shinseki and and Gates 17 months to
figure out how? There's your time waster right there. And it was not
needed. Shinseki and Panette did not need to 'invent' a damn thing.
This is not a new issue. VA has long ago addressed what they need with
regards to records and DoD has identified the same. And after this had
been done (and redone), Robert Dole and Donna Shalala served on the Dole
-Shalala Commission coming up with many of the same things. The Dole
-Shalala Commission was established in 2007 and formally known as the
President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded
Warriors. Appearing before the House Veterans Affairs Committee
February 7, 2008, VA's Dr. James Peake testified that this electronic
record was "a critical recommendation in the Dole-Shalala Commission
report."

So he and Gates agreed what their departments needed to do in
March 2011. Then, in June 2011, Panetta becomes Secretary of Defense
and Shinseki decides to start all over and spend 17 months coming to an
agreement with Leon? This falls on Shinseki. He has not delivered on
the task. Yet again.

At what point is there accountability? At
yesterday's joint-press conference, Shinseki bragged that he and
Panetta had just held the ninth meeting ("in 18 months") and they
stressed the "commitment of both of our departments to a single, common,
joint integrated electronic health record, the IEHR." The ninth
meeting, Shinskei explained "was about how to get there." Really?
Panetta's got one foot out the door and you're meeting with him "about
how to get there"? Barack Obama tasked you with this duty back in April
of 2009 and, in February of 2013, you're having a meeting "about how to
get there"?

There's a lot of confusion as to what's going on. Patricia Kime (Army Times) does a great job covering where things stand.
The same can't be said for others. What's taking place is that the
actual task is being tossed aside. Instead, some low rent version of
what was asked for is going to be assembled. Let's quote Senator Patty
Murray from yesterday's press release.

“I’m disappointed that the VA and the
Pentagon are now backing away from a truly seamless medical records system.
While this is a very complex problem, we must provide the best care for our
servicemembers and veterans. That means the departments must meet this
challenge by working together. What they are now proposing is not the fully
integrated, end-to-end IT solution that this problem demands. VA and DOD have
been at this for years and have sunk over $1 billion into making this the
cornerstone of a nationwide electronic medical records initiative. I intend to
follow-up with both Secretaries to find out why this decision was
made.”

Senator Murray is the outgoing Chair of the
Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. She's right that, after wasting $1
billion in taxpayer dollars, they're now refusing to live up to what was
promised.

It's not going to be the full medical records -- as people were promised. Instead, as the Defense Dept revealed through various flunkies on a press call yesterday,
"information on prescriptions or information on lab results that will
be exchanged on all patients, and most critically, in a standard data
format at the point in 2014, so the data looks exactly the same between
the two systems." That is a huge come down from an electronic record
that would carry all the patient information and follow the service
member on over to the VA. This was an expensive proposal. But it was
thought that veterans' health was worth it and it was thought that this
would also help lower some health costs (both by being paperless and by
being a complete record which would mean tests wouldn't be accidentally
duplicated since you had a complete record).

Leon Panetta said
at yesterday's joint-press conference, "Achieving the goal has taken a
tremendous amount of collaboration at all levels. But I'm proud to say
that our department are now working together more closely than ever
before. We recognized that bringing together two large bureaucracies,
trying to make those bureaucracies work together to form a seamless
support system for all service members and veterans is not an easy
challenge. It's tough." You need Leon criticism? Every word just
quoted was ignorant and uninformed. Your proud that the two departments
are working more closely than before? Well that's been the assigned
task since 2007. Two different administrations have called for that.
It's not "an easy challenge"? You're right, Leon, it's not "an easy
challenge." Because a challenge would be Barack saying to you, "Let's
all work harder on meeting the needs of our veterans and service
members." That's a goal, a challenge. "You and VA create . . ."
That's an assignment. Both departments were tasked with that assignment
back in 2009. It's tough? Well, it's an assignment. It's a job
assignment. If you're not up to it, you're not up to the job (or you're
saying that President Barack Obama was unrealistic when he handed out
the assignment). It's amazing how everyone shirks responsibility. A
task was assigned in 2009. The task has not been achieved. That means
you failed. In the real world, that means you get fired. This lack of
accountability is exactly why there will be little concern over
government layoffs if sequestration takes effect. The American people
are tired of seeing nothing get accomplished over and over. They wants
scalps at this point. It's a shame it will most likely be the scalps of
the overworked civil service employees and not those in management who
are supposed to be getting results (but repeatedly fail to do so).

WASHINGTON, D.C.
– The chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House Committees
on Veterans’ Affairs today faulted the Pentagon and Department of
Veterans Affairs for backing off plans to create a single computer
system to integrate electronic medical records for troops and veterans.Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
said: “I am deeply disappointed by the VA and Defense Department
decision to back away from a commitment to develop and implement a truly
integrated, single, electronic health record. President Obama charged
the departments with creating a seamless system of integration so that
service members transitioning from active duty to civilian life don’t
have to worry about whether their health records will be lost or their
claims delayed. An integrated record would allow for a streamlined and
timely claims process, faster decisions on benefits, less duplication in
medical testing and more efficient, cost-effective treatment for both
physical and mental health needs. Now more than ever we need greater
cooperation between the departments to solve the serious challenges that
continue to confront our service members and veterans. I will continue
to work to achieve better coordination by the departments and to ensure
that the needs of veterans are met.”House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Chairman Jeff Miller (R-Fla.)
said: “The decision by DOD and VA to turn their backs on a truly
integrated electronic health record system is deeply troubling. The need
for a record system integrated across all DOD and VA components has
been universally accepted for years, and until yesterday, both agencies
have given us nothing but assurances they were working toward that goal.
Previous attempts by DOD and VA to use disparate computer systems to
produce universal electronic health records have failed, and
unfortunately it appears they are repeating past mistakes. When DOD and
VA take shortcuts, the veterans and service members under their care
will be shortchanged.” Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C), the ranking member of the Senate committee,
said: “The fact that VA and DoD would reverse course on a plan they
have been working towards for years that would create a coordinated
electronic health record system between the two agencies is concerning
and disappointing. I am concerned about what this means for our
nation’s service members and veterans, particularly those who will be
transitioning from active duty service to civilian life in the near
future. We owe it to our nation’s defenders to do all we can to care
for them and provide the most effective, efficient service we can, and
coordination and communication between these two agencies is absolutely
vital.” Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine), ranking member of the House committee,
said: “This is a huge setback and completely unacceptable. For years we
have been told by both agencies that progress was made and that things
were on track. I’m disappointed that our nation’s two largest
government agencies – one of which is the world’s foremost developer of
high-tech machines and cyber-systems – could not come together on
something that would have been so beneficial to those that served. We
have just witnessed hundreds of millions of dollars go down the drain.”Additional Contacts:Michael Briggs (Sanders) 202 224-5141David Ward (Burr) 202 228-2971Ed Gilman (Michaud) 202 225-6306

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.